Design of an Optimal PID Controller Based on Lyapunov Approach
Xian Hong Li1,2, Hai Bin Yu1,**, Min Zhe Yuan1
1. Key Laboratory of Industrial Informatics, Shen Yang
Institute of Automation Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shen
Yang 110016, China
Abstract—this paper addresses on design of an optimal
proportional integral derivative (PID) controller by applying
Lyapunov approach. The optimal PID controller is acquired
through minimizing an augmented integral squared error (AISE)
performance index that contains control error and at least first
order error derivative, and even may contain n orders error
derivative. The order of error derivative is determined by the
controlled plant’s model order. The optimal control problem is
transformed into a nonlinear constraint optimization (NLCO)
problem. The optimal parameters are obtained from solving the
NLCO problem. The performances of different tuning methods
are compared. The effects of control weight on optimal controller
and control system’s performance are analyzed as well. The
computer simulation results are presented to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the proposed method and optimal PID controller.
Keywords- optimal PID controller; Lyapunov approach; NLCO
problem; control weight;
1. Introduction
The PID controller is widely applied in various industrial
control processes. Traditional PID controllers have been tuned
empirically by the methods that are proposed by Ziegler-
Nichols and Cohen-Coon in [3-5]. Although the Ziegler-
Nichols (Z-N) methods are presented in 1940s, they are still
broadly used in the industrial control process. Z-N methods
contain two tuning methods that are presented in [3-4]. One is
known as the continuous cycling (C-C) method (first Z-N
method), the other is process reaction curve (PRC) method
(second Z-N method). The PRC method is special proposed
for the plants that contain pure time delay. Cohen and Coon
present a design method for a first order plus time delay
(FOPTD) plant in [5]. These empirically methods sometimes
bring about oscillatory responses. In recent years, many
methods have been proposed to design the optimal PID
controller. An optimal PID tuning method is presented by
minimizing the integral absolute error (IAE) performance
index for FOPTD and second order plus time delay (SOPTD)
plants in [6]. The intelligent algorithms such as immune
algorithm (IA), modified genetic algorithm (MGA), modified
ant colony algorithm (MACA), and particle swarm algorithm
(PSA) are employed to design the optimal PID controller in
[7-13]. Direct parameters optimization method is used to
design the optimal PID controller in [19-22]. The classic linear
quadratic regulator (LQR) methods are also employed to
design the optimal PID controller in [23-25]. To improve the
control system’s robustness, a robust optimal PID controller is
designed in [26-27]. Most of the methods are proposed for
first-order plant and second-order plant, and some of methods
are complex for design of the PID controller. The methods that
are used to design PID controller in [3-27] are divided into
978-1-4244-4994-1/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE
2. Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
100039, China
3. Corresponding author**, email (yhb@sia.cn)
these cases: the empirically methods, directly parameters
optimization methods, intelligent methods, and classic LQR
methods. In this paper, a novel systematic method is presented
to design an optimal PID controller. Based on Lyapunov
theory, an optimal PID controller is proposed by minimizing
the augmented integral squared error (AISE) performance
index. The proposed method is unlike the classic optimal
control method that needs solving a riccati equation (RE). The
optimal PID parameters are obtained form solving a nonlinear
constraint optimization problem. The proposed method is
convenient to design an optimal controller that can provide
high performance for control system. The paper is arranged as:
the preliminary and optimal problem statements are presented
in Section.2. In Section.3, the systematic method of design the
optimal controller is proposed. The simulation results are
presents and the effects of weight factor on the control system
are analyzed in Section.4. In Section.5, the study contents are
reviewed and conclusions are presented.
2. Preliminary and optimal problem statements
Preliminary:
A method is proposed to design the optimal PID controller
based on Lyapunov theory. Following theorems are utilized to
design the optimal PID controller.
Theorem.1[1,2]:
Sufficient and necessary conditions for the linear time
invariant system x = Ax is asymptotical stability in a large
scope is that: for any given Q=QT>0 there exists a matrix
P=PT>0 that satisfies the Lyapunov algebraic equation (LAE):
A P + PA = −Q .
T
Theorem.2[1,2]:
The linear time invariant system x = Ax , and x(0)=x0 is
asymptotical stability, then the performance index J has the
following relationships
∞
J = x Qxdt = x (0) Px (0), A P + PA = −Q
T T T
³
0
Optimal problem statements:
The general transfer function Gp(s) represents the dynamic
model of linear controlled plants.
b1s w + b2 s w−1 + " + bw s + bw+1 N ( s )
G p (s) = = (1)
s n + a1s n −1 + " + an −1s + an M ( s)
Where b1, b2 . . . bw+1 and a1 … an are the system parameters.
Denominator’s and numerator’s order of transfer function are
deg (M(s)) = n and deg (N(s)) = w respectively. For most of
practical control system n>w, so the number of poles n is large
than the number of zeros w. It is noted that for an all-pole
plant b1, b2 … bw=0, additionally for a Type 1 plant an=0, and
for a Type 2 plant an-1= an=0, and so on. The control system
diagram is shown in Fig.1. Where Gc(s) is the transfer function
of the PID controller, e(t) is control error, r(t) and y(t) are the
command signal and plant’s output respectively. Hence, the
control system is described by equations
°­u ( s ) = Gc ( s )e( s ), Gc ( s ) = ( k p s + ki + kd s ) / s
2 PID controller. Hence, we pursue a PID controller that
® (2)
°̄ r ( s ) − y ( s )  e( s ), y ( s ) = G p ( s )u ( s )
­ r ( s ) = y ( s ) + e( s ), y ( s) = N ( s )u ( s ) / M ( s )
Ÿ®
¯u ( s) = (k p s + ki + kd s )e( s ) / s
2
The error transfer function is obtained
( sM (s) + N (s) ( k s + k + k s )) e(s) = sM (s)r (s) (4)
p i d
2
directly reflected by control error. In this paper an augmented
integral squared error (AISE) is proposed to design an optimal
stabilizes the system and minimizes the proposed performance
index. Then the proposed optimal control problem is stated
that: designing an optimal PID controller stabilizes the control
system and minimizes the given performance index. Thus, the
(3)
proposed optimal control problem is depicted by following
equations
­ J * = min J ( m ,! , m ) = min ∞ xT (t )Qx (t )dt
° Gc*
1 w +3 ³0
° n
° = min ¦ qi +1,i +1 ( e(t )( i ) )2 dt
∞

° i =0
³ 0
°
® subject to ( s.t ) : (8)
°
°(1) x = Ax
°(2) Re ( eig ( A ) ) E 0
°
°(3) m4 = f1 ( m1 , m2 , m3 ) ,! , mw+ 3 = f w ( m1 , m2 , m3 )
¯
Where Q is a control weight matrix and at least is a positive
When the command signal r(t) is a constant signal or semi-definite (PSD) real symmetric matrix. Constraint.2 of the
command signal r(t)=0, even the piecewise constant signal. equation.8 certifies the stability of the control system. The
The system’s error differential equation can be got by inverse proposed method assumes the linear controlled plant is
Laplace transform of equation.4. Hence the error differential controllable. The optimal PID controller is depended on the
equation yields parameters mi (i=1, 2,…,w+3) that are the decision variables.
( )
δ M (δ ) + N (δ ) ( k pδ + ki + kd δ 2 ) e(t ) = 0 (5) But in these decision variables, only three variables are the
independent variable because the rest variables are the
Where į is differential operator. Considering the polynomial
interrelated variable. The linear functions f1,…,fw of the
differential operator M(į) and N(į), then the error differential
constraint.3 reflect the decision variables’ inner relationships.
is acquired
3. Optimal controller design
e(t )( n +1) + a1e(t )( n ) + a2 e(t )( n −1) + " + an − w− 2e(t )( w+3) Not losing the generality, a standard third-order controlled
+ ( an − w−1 + b1kd ) e(t )( w+ 2) + ( an − w + b1k p + b2 kd ) e(t )( w+1) plant is considered in the unity feedback control system. The
plant’s transfer function and PID controller has the following
w −1
+ ¦ ( an − w+ j + b j +1k p + b j ki + b j + 2 kd )e(t )( w+1− j ) form respectively
j =1 b1s 2 + b2 s + b3 k
G p ( s) = , Gc ( s) = k p + i +kd s (9)
+ ( an + bw+1k p + bw ki ) e(t ) + bw+1ki e(t ) = 0 (6) s + a1s + a2 s + a3
3 2
s
The open looped transfer function of control system yields
The state-space model of differential equation.6 is obtained
x = Ax (7) G ( s) = Gc (s)G p (s) =
( k s + k + k s )( b s + b s + b )
p i d
2
1
2
2 3
(10)
s(s + a s + a s + a )
3 2
Where x is state vector, A is state matrix, C1×n is a parameter 1 2 3

Then the error differential equation is derived.

vector On×1 is a zero vector, I n×n is an unit matrix, the
parameters mi (i=1,2,…,w+3) are defined as
§ O
x = ( e(t ) e(t ) e(t ) " e(t )( n ) ) , A = ¨ n×1
T
© − mw+3
C1×n = ( −mw+ 2 " − m1 − an − w− 2 " − a2 − a1 )
m1 = ( an − w−1 + kd b1 ) , m2 = ( an − w + b1k p + b2 kd )
m1e(t ) (4) + m2 e(t ) (3) + m3
e (t ) + m4 e(t ) + m5 e(t ) = 0 (11)
Where the parameters of the equation.11 are defined as
I n×n ·
m1 = 1 + kd b1 , m2 = a1 + k p b1 + kd b2 , m5 = ki b3
¸
C1×n ¹
m3 = a2 + ki b1 + k p b2 + k d b3 , m4 = a3 + ki b2 + k p b3
Thus, the state-space model of error differential Equ.11 is
obtained. Where x is state vector, A is state matrix, mi1 is the

m j + 2 = ( an − w+ j + b j +1k p + b j ki + b j + 2 kd ) ( j = 1, 2,...., w − 1)
middle decision variables and mi1 =mi+1/m1 (i=1, 2, 3, 4).
x = Ax (12)
mw+ 2 = ( an + bw+1k p + bw ki ) , mw+3 = bw+1ki § O3×1 I 3×3 ·
( )
x = e(t ) e(t ) e(t ) e(t ) (3) , A = ¨
− m14 −C1×3 ¹
1
(
¸ , C1×3 = − m3 − m2 − m1
1 1
)
To assess an optimal controller, we should pose a performance ©
index. The performance index such as the integral squared The proposed optimal control problem is formulated
error (ISE), IAE, integral time absolute error (ITAE) and
integral time squared error (ITSE) are often used for criteria.
Precision and steady-state characteristic of control system are
 ­ J * = min J ( m ,! , m ) = min ∞ xT (t )Qx(t )dt
° Gc*
1 5 ³0
° 3
° = min ¦ qi +1,i +1 ( e(t )(i ) ) 2 dt
∞
° i =0
³ 0
° Newton methods, Lagrange method, Conjugate Gradient
® s.t :
° method, Interior Point method, and intelligent algorithms have
°(1) x = Ax
°(2) Re ( eig ( A ) ) E 0
°
°(3) m4 = f1 ( m1 , m2 , m3 ) , m5 = f 2 ( m1 , m2 , m3 )
¯ controller is obtained
If the optimal control problem is solved, then corresponding
optimal PID controller is obtained. The system characteristic
equation (CE) is D ( s ) = s 4 + m11s 3 + m12 s 2 + m31 s + m14 = 0 . Based
on linear time invariant (LTI) stability theory, all the poles of
the CE should have negative real part that guarantees the
control system is asymptotic stability in a large scope. Hence,
the middle decision parameters mi1 (i=1, 2, 3, 4) should satisfy
the inequality.14 that is obtained from routh-hurwitz criterion
(RHC).
­°m11 ; 0, m14 ; 0, m11m12 − m31 ; 0
® 1 1 1 (14)
°̄m1 m2 m3 − (m3 ) − (m1 ) m4 ; 0
1 2 1 2 1
Because the control system and its error autonomous system
are asymptotic stability, according to Lyapunov theorem.1-2,
the performance index of the optimal control problem.13 is
equal to the following performance index.15.
∞
J * = min
*
J ( m1 ,! , m5 ) = min ³ xT Qxdt = min xT (0) Px(0) (15)
Gc 0
Where P is a positive definite (PD) real symmetric matrix and
P meets the LAE: AT P + PA = −Q .The optimal performance
index.15 is determined by the matrix P and initial state. Thus,
the optimal control problem.13 is equally transformed by
employing the Lyapunov theorem.1-2. The optimal control
problem.13 is already equally transformed into optimization
problem.16. Hence, designing an optimal PID controller is
depicted by optimization problem.16
­ J * = min J ( m1 ,! , m5 ) = min xT (0) Px (0)
* large impact on the control system, particular the control
° Gc
° s.t :
°
°(1) AT P + PA = −Q
® (16)
°(2) m11 ; 0, m41 ; 0, m11m21 − m31 ; 0,
° 1 1 1
° m1 m2 m3 − ( m3 ) − ( m1 ) m4 ; 0
1 2 1 2 1
°(3) m = f ( m , m , m ) , m = f ( m , m , m )
¯ 4 1 1 2 3 5 2 1 2 3
The optimal PID controller designing problem is deduced
into an issue that we pursue a suitable matrix P that minimizes
the performance index for the given control weight matrix and
initial states. The optimization problem.16 is nonlinear
constrained optimization (NLCO) problem. We assume that
the control system is static at the beginning, an unit step
command r(t)=1(t) is inputted into the system, and the initial
states can be obtained x1(0) =1, x2 (0) =0, x3 (0) =0, x4 (0) =0.
The matrix P satisfies the LAE. The weight matrix Q is a
diagonal matrix and Q=diag(q1,1 q2,2 q3,3 q4,4 )=diag(q1 q2 q3
q4). The nonlinear optimization problem.16 has five decision
variables and three constraint conditions. In fact, the NLCO
problem.16 only has three independent variables. The NLCO
problem.16 can be solved by different optimization methods.
Many optimization methods such as Newton's method, Quasi-
(13)
been well established to solve the NLCO problem. Thus the
optimal parameters mi* (i=1,…,5) are acquired, considering
the defined parameters in Equ.11, finally the optimal PID
ki* m* − a − b k * m* m* − 1
Gc* = k *p + + kd* s, k *p = 4 3 2 i , ki* = 5 , kd* = 1 (17)
s b3 b3 b1
We should be noted that: (1) the proposed systematic method
can be applied in first-order, second-order, and higher-order
plant as well; (2) The design method is proposed for unit
feedback control system. If the control system is not unit
feedback control system, then this system can be transformed
into standard unit feedback control system by employing
transfer function equivalent principle; (3) Time delay can be
approximated by padé approximation. Thus, the presented
method is also applied in a plant containing time delay.
4. Simulation results
To prove the proposed method, let us consider following
two controlled processes GP1(s) and GP2(s) that are the transfer
function of plant.1[7] and plant.2[6] respectively. GP1(s) is a
third-order all-pole controlled object, whereas GP2(s) is a
FOPTD plant.
15 4e−10 s
G p1 ( s ) = 2 , G p 2 (s) =
( s + 0.9 s + 5)( s + 3) 10s + 1
The Table.1 demonstrates the optimal PID controllers and
system performances in various control weight matrixes. The
effects of control weight matrix on the system performances
and the corresponding step responses of the plant.1 are shown
in Table.1 and Fig.2 respectively. The Fig.2 displays the
effects of control weight on control system more intuitively.
Table.1 and Fig.2 both reflect that control weight matrix has
system’s response speed and transient performances are
mainly affected by control weight factor q1. The overshoot
increases form 6.69% to 8.47% when the weight factor q1
increases from 5 to 10, which is shown in Table.1. Fig.2 and
Table.1 both show that the response speed will heighten when
increasing weight factor q1. Through the study, it finds that
increasing the weight factor q1 will heighten control system’s
overshoot and response speed. Reducing weight factors q2, q3,
and q4 will also increase the overshoot and response speed too.
Therefore, we can enhance the response speed by increasing
weight factor q1. The performances of using different tuning
methods are discussed in the plant.1 and plant.2. The plant.1’s
step response and transient performances are shown in Fig.3
and Table.2 respectively. The Z-N method has smaller rise
time, delay time, and peak time than the proposed method, but
the Z-N method has larger overshoot and setting time than the
propose method. The response of Z-N method emerges
oscillation however the proposed method’s response is smooth
and its control error attenuates faster than Z-N method as well.
 Table.1: optimal PID controllers and performances of plant.1 in various control weights
Weight Plant.1 Rise Delay Peak Setting Peak
matrix time time time time overshoot
Q=diag k*p k*i k*d tr td tp ts Mp (%)
(q1 q2 q3 q4) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
(5 5 1 1) 0.13121 0.58138 0.58655 4.06 1.685 5.31 3.54 4.08
(5 2 1 1) 0.01633 0.58138 0.51933 3.68 1.80 5.00 6.07 6.69
(10 2 1 1) 0.23263 0.82219 0.64449 2.85 1.318 4.02 5.35 8.47
(10 10 1 1) 0.47606 0.82219 0.77901 3.16 1.14 4.38 2.756 4.58
(10 10 4 2) 0.15570 0.58138 0.64101 4.12 1.69 5.37 3.60 4.23

Table.2: performances of plant.1 using different tuning methods

Method kp ki kd Rise time Delay time Peak time Setting time Peak overshoot
tr (sec) td (sec) tp (sec) ts (sec) Mp (%)
Proposed 0.13121 0.58138 0.58655 4.06 1.685 5.31 3.54 4.08
Method
Z-N 0.5971 1.0750 0.2687 1.371 0.877 1.643 6.41 11.08
Method

Table.3: performances of plant.2 using different tuning methods

Method kp ki kd Rise time Delay time Peak time Setting time Peak overshoot
tr (sec) td (sec) tp (sec) ts (sec) Mp (%)
Proposed 0.3300 0.01641 1.4725 19.17 14.176 21.54 58.06 10.84
Method
Z-N 0.306 0.0205 1.1384 19.238 14.367 24.98 51.60 18.18
Z-N Method (C-C)
Method Z-N 0.3000 0.0150 0.0600 20.286 14.635 26.43 56.06 21.17
Method (PRC)
Cohen-Coon 0.3958 0.0219 1.2178 17.252 13.40 21.43 67.05 38.06
Method
respectively. The Cohen-Coon method has the largest peak
overshoot 38.06% and longest setting time 67.05sec, which is
shown in Fig.4 and Table.3. The Z-N method (C-C) and Z-N
method (PRC) have the peak overshoot 18.18% and 21.17%
respectively. The proposed method has small overshoot
10.84% than these methods. The proposed method provides
better control performances. Therefore, the proposed method
is also suitable for designing optimal PID controller for the
plant with time delay.
5. Conclusions
A systematic method is presented to design an optimal PID
controller in this paper. The optimal PID controller is
proposed by minimizing the AISE performance index that
contains control error and at least first -order error derivative,
and even may contain n orders error derivative. The optimal
control problem is transformed into a NLCO problem through
employing the Lyapunov theorem. The optimal parameters
are obtained from solving the NLCO problem. The effects of
control weight factor on optimal controller and system
performances are also analyzed. The control weight matrix
has large impact on the control system, particular the control
system’s response speed and transient performances are
mainly affected by weight factor q1. The research finds that
increasing the weight factor q1 will heighten the control
system’s overshoot and response speed. Reducing the weight
factors q2, q3, and q4 also will heighten the control system’s
The plant.2 is a FOPTD process with a dead time ratio overshoot and response speed as well. Computer simulation
IJ/T=1.0. The plant.2’s step response and transient characters results are presented to show the effectiveness of the proposed
of different tuning methods are shown in Fig.4 and Table.3 method and optimal PID controller.
 Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Dr. John Paddison for his
assistance and recommendation. This work is partially
supported by research project No.2007BAF09B01.
References
[1] John J. D’Azzo, Constantine H.Houpis, “Linear control system analysis
and design”, Mc.Graw-Hill, Inc1981 (second edition)
[2] M.D.Tong, “Linear system theory and design”, University of Science
and Technology of China press, 2004 (in Chinese)
[3] J. G. Ziegler, N.B. Nichols, “Optimum settings for automatic
controllers,” Trans. ASME, vol. 64, pp. 759-768, 1942.
[4] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, “Process Lags in Automatic Control
Circuits” Trans. ASME, 65, pp. 433-444, 1943.
[5] G. H. Cohen and G. A. Coon, “Theoretical Consideration of Related
Control,” Trans. ASME,75, pp.827-834, 1953.
[6] C.R. Madhuranthakam, A. Elkamel, H. Budman “Optimal tuning of PID
controllers for FOPTD, SOPTD and SOPTD with lead processes”, Chemical
Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) pp251–264
[7] Dong Hwa Kim, Jae Hoon Cho “Intelligent Tuning of PID Controller
with Disturbance Function Using Immune Algorithm” Fuzzy Information,
2004.Processing NAFIPS'04.IEEE Annual Meeting of the Volume 1, 27-30
June 2004 Page(s):286 – 291Vol.1
[8] Y.P. Wang, D.R. Hur, H.H. Chung, N.R. Watson, J. Arrillaga, S.S.
Matair “Design of an optimal PID controller in AC-DC power system using
modified genetic algorithm” Power System Technology, 2000. Proceedings
.Power Con 2000.International Conference on Volume 3, 4-7 Dec. 2000
Page(s):1437-1442 vol.3
[9] Qingdong Zeng, Guanzheng Tan “Optimal Design of PID Controller
Using Modified Ant Colony System Algorithm” Natural Computation, 2007.
ICNC2007. Third International Conference on Natural Computation Volume
5, 24-27 Aug. 2007 Page(s):436 – 440
[10] Zwe-Lee Gaing, “A Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for
Optimum Design of PID Controller in AVR System”, IEEE Transactions on
energy conversion, Vol.19, No.2, June 2004, pp384-391
[11] Haibing Hu, Qingbo Hu, Zhengyu Lu, Dehong Xu “Optimal PID
Controller Design in PMSM Servo System Via Particle Swarm Optimization”
Industrial Electronics Society, 2005.IECON 2005. 31st Annual Conference of
IEEE 6-10 Nov. 2005 Page(s): pp79-83
[12] Tae-Hyoung Kim, Ichiro Maruta, Toshiharu Sugie “Particle Swarm
Optimization based Robust PID Controller Tuning Scheme” Proceedings of
the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control New Orleans, LA, USA,
Dec. 12-14, 2007, pp200-205
[13] Mahmud Iwan Solihin, Wahyudi, M.A.S. Kamal, Ari Legowo “Optimal
PID Controller Tuning of Automatic Gantry Crane Using PSO Algorithm”
Proceeding of the 5th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its
Applications (ISMA08), Amman, Jordan, May 27-29, 2008
[14] Saravuth Pothiya, Issarachai Ngamroo “Optimal fuzzy logic-based PID
controller for load–frequency control including”, Energy Conversion and
Management 49 (2008) pp2833–2838
[15] M.Zhuang, D.P. Atherton “Automatic tuning of optimum PID
controllers”, Control Theory and Applications, IEE Proceedings D Volume
140, Issue 3, May 1993 Page(s):216 – 224
[16] Gisli Herjdlfsson, Anna Soffia Hauksddttir “Direct computation of
optimal PID controllers” Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control Mad, Hawaii USA, December 2003, pp1120-1125
[17] S.Daley, G.P.Liu “Optimal PID tuning using direct search algorithms”,
Computing Control Engineering Journal Volume 10, Issue 2, April 1999
Page(s):51 – 56
[18] Saeed Tavakoli, Mahdi Tavakoli “Optimal Tuning of PID Controllers
for First Order plus Time Delay Models Using Dimensional Analysis” The
Fourth International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA’03), 10-
12 June 2003, Montreal, Canada, pp942-946
[19] H.Panagopoulos, K.J.Astrom, T.Hagglund “Design of PID controllers
based on constrained optimization”, Control Theory and Applications, IEE
Proceedings Volume 149, Issue 1, Jan. 2002 Page(s):32 – 40
[20] Chyi Hwang, Chun-Yen Hsiao “Solution of a non-convex optimization
arising in PI/PID control design”, Automatica 38 (2002) pp1895 – 1904
[21] Yali Xue, Donghai Li, Chongde Lv “Optimal Design of PID Controller
Based on Sensitivity Constraint” Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on
Intelligent Control and Automation, June 15-19, 2004, Hangzhou, P.R. China
[22] Chen-Huei Hsieh, Jyh-Horng Chou “Design of Optimal PID
Controllers for PWM Feedback Systems with Bilinear Plants”, IEEE
Transaction on control systems technology, vol.15, NO.6, Nov.2007,pp 1075-
1079
[23] Richard T. O’Brien, Jr, Jamie M. Howe “Optimal PID Controller
Design using Standard Optimal Control Techniques” 2008 American Control
Conference Westin Seattle Hotel, Seattle, Washington, USA June 11-13,
2008, pp4733-4738
[24] Jian-Bo Het, Qing-Guo Wang, Tong-Heng Lee “PI/PID Controller
Tuning Via LQR Approach” Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on
Decision & Control Tampa, Florida USA December 1998, pp1177-1182
[25] Gwo-Ruey Yu, Rey-Chue Hwang “Optimal PID Speed Control of
Brushless DC Motors Using LQR Approach” 2004 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp473-478
[26] H.Zargarzadeh, M. R. Jahed Motlagh, M. M. Arefi, “Multivariable
Robust Optimal PID Controller Design for A Non-minimum Phase Boiler
System Using Loop Transfer Recovery Technique” 6th Mediterranean
Conference on Control and Automation Congress Centre, Ajaccio, France
June 25-27, 2008, pp1520-1525
[27] Pu Han, Yu Huang, Zeng-Zhou JIA, Dong-Feng Wang, Yong-Ling Li
“Mixed H_2/H_’ Optimal PID Control for Superheated Steam Temperature
System Based on PSO Optimization” Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Guangzhou, 18-21 August
2005